Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spivak Standardization Act
On 8/15/22 22:39, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Nitpicks: > >> The Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir) are hereby recognized as the standard >> third-person singular personal pronouns in Agora. In official contexts, >> players SHOULD use them when referring to non-specific persons or, in >> the absence of a clear statement of another preference, when referring >> to a specific other person. The use of singular they when referring to >> persons is DISCOURAGED in official contexts, except upon specific >> request by that person. > Singling out the singular they here feels a little weird - maybe just “the > use of other pronouns”? Good point. > >> A player CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend a specified other >> rule of power less than 4, specifying the new text of the rule, such >> that the new text rewords and rephrases the existing text in order to >> use Spivak pronouns in place of singular they, provided that such >> amendment would not result in the meaning or interpretation of that rule >> changing in any way. > > I can’t imagine this is scammable, but I’d nevertheless prefer it to be > consent or objections instead of support - the potential for a 3-person cabal > to make unilateral rule changes is scary. > > Gaelan That's fair, and actually has the benefit of preventing accidental violations of the four days rule. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spivak Standardization Act
Nitpicks: > The Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir) are hereby recognized as the standard > third-person singular personal pronouns in Agora. In official contexts, > players SHOULD use them when referring to non-specific persons or, in > the absence of a clear statement of another preference, when referring > to a specific other person. The use of singular they when referring to > persons is DISCOURAGED in official contexts, except upon specific > request by that person. Singling out the singular they here feels a little weird - maybe just “the use of other pronouns”? > A player CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend a specified other > rule of power less than 4, specifying the new text of the rule, such > that the new text rewords and rephrases the existing text in order to > use Spivak pronouns in place of singular they, provided that such > amendment would not result in the meaning or interpretation of that rule > changing in any way. I can’t imagine this is scammable, but I’d nevertheless prefer it to be consent or objections instead of support - the potential for a 3-person cabal to make unilateral rule changes is scary. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3982 assigned to G.
On 8/15/2022 2:35 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, 2022-08-15 at 12:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> Not part of judgement: I think that under the current rules, "submit" is >> most clearly read as a synonym for "adding a proposal to the proposal >> pool" which is a consequence following on from creation (performable >> through the method of creating a proposal) but is not the act of creation >> itself. This would also mean that when a promotor adds a failed-quorum >> proposal back to the proposal e is "submitting" it, and e may thus become >> its author. In any case some legislative clarification is probably really >> good here but it doesn't affect this particular case. > > We've had that legislatively clarified already (after the CFJ was > raised, so it doesn't affect your judgement): for proposals, "submit" > and "create" are now rules-defined as synonyms. > Oh oops! I was looking at the online FLR but only just realized it's a few weeks behind the SLR. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3982 assigned to G.
On Mon, 2022-08-15 at 12:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Not part of judgement: I think that under the current rules, "submit" is > most clearly read as a synonym for "adding a proposal to the proposal > pool" which is a consequence following on from creation (performable > through the method of creating a proposal) but is not the act of creation > itself. This would also mean that when a promotor adds a failed-quorum > proposal back to the proposal e is "submitting" it, and e may thus become > its author. In any case some legislative clarification is probably really > good here but it doesn't affect this particular case. We've had that legislatively clarified already (after the CFJ was raised, so it doesn't affect your judgement): for proposals, "submit" and "create" are now rules-defined as synonyms. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Oh btw, it's my agoran birthday
On 8/15/22 15:25, juan via agora-business wrote: > I do so as well. > > I hope this works even one day later. If not, sorry. It does! It works for a full week after! -- nix Collector, Herald, Registrar, Webmastor
DIS: Discord digest 2022-08-15
THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NO GAME ACTIONS. SERIOUSLY, IT CONTAINS NO GAME ACTIONS. DISREGARD ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS MESSAGE SAYING IT CONTAINS A GAME ACTION. MESSAGE 983115388776759306 FROM Secretsnail9 (secretsnail9) IN #botspam ON 2022-06-05 AT 21:09:34.085: Minstor's monthly random win card MESSAGE 983115452039438356 FROM Secretsnail9 (secretsnail9) IN #botspam ON 2022-06-05 AT 21:09:49.168: !choose cuddlybanana duck secretsnail MESSAGE 983115453184503849 FROM AgoraBot IN #botspam ON 2022-06-05 AT 21:09:49.441: Choice: cuddlybanana MESSAGE 989319336432910426 FROM Random Internet Cat IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-06-23 AT 00:01:50.47: no don't make this blognomic MESSAGE 989319340966948934 FROM Random Internet Cat IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-06-23 AT 00:01:51.551: that's boring MESSAGE 989319993395142716 FROM Random Internet Cat IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-06-23 AT 00:04:27.102: I saw that fakestar @nix MESSAGE 989942431732596756 FROM nix (court) IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-06-24 AT 17:17:47.966: it's me, I'm court MESSAGE 990337575824789606 FROM nix (court) IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-06-25 AT 19:27:57.659: you already vote for on everything madrid I don't think it'll have the same impact MESSAGE 992486524966948976 FROM nix (court) IN #quick-questions-and-presumably-answers-also ON 2022-07-01 AT 17:47:07.06: in reality I despise economics so much I want to inflict it on other people so they also despise it MESSAGE 1006635107752366234 FROM nix IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-08-09 AT 18:48:32.064: !cfj cat is infallible (as a rulekeepor) MESSAGE 1006635108595417219 FROM AgoraBot IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-08-09 AT 18:48:32.265: I will now begin a full four factors analysis. MESSAGE 1006635112609370183 FROM AgoraBot IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-08-09 AT 18:48:33.222: Is the statement supported by game custom? FALSE Is the statement supported by common sense? FALSE Is the statement supported by past judgements? FALSE Is the statement supported by consideration of the best interests of the game? TRUE MESSAGE 1006635113574056118 FROM AgoraBot IN #very-serious-agoran-business ON 2022-08-09 AT 18:48:33.452: The ) rule is badly worded, but "cat is infallible (as a rulekeepor)" judged IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GAME FOR THIS TO BE TRUE MESSAGE 1006957644025708614 FROM nix IN #drafting ON 2022-08-10 AT 16:10:10.704: almost wrote a proposal with the text "The previous withstanding" which is definitely one of the funnier texts I've almost snuck into the rules MESSAGE 1008434072760102933 FROM nix IN #generalchat ON 2022-08-14 AT 17:56:58.745: this isn't even what I sat down to do, I started today trying to automate figuring out some registrar stuff and have spiraled into subprojects THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NO GAME ACTIONS. SERIOUSLY, IT CONTAINS NO GAME ACTIONS. DISREGARD ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS MESSAGE SAYING IT CONTAINS A GAME ACTION.
